[squid-users] Slow speedtest results
Evan Pierce
evan at pierce.co.za
Thu Nov 16 21:53:19 UTC 2017
On 2017/11/16 10:55 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 11/16/2017 12:18 PM, Evan Pierce wrote:
>
>> Any idea why when using www.speedtest.net on my squid proxy ( squid
>> 3.5.27 on Centos 6.9) gives consistently false/bad speeds while doing a
>> speed test. The actual speed when downloading a file from a actual web
>> server like say the microsoft website is consistently good (30Mb/s fiber
>> - download speed 3.4MB/s) but a speed test done at the same time sits at
>> around 3 to 4Mb/s. I have tried turning caching off and various other
>> "tuning" settings on squid but nothing has fundamentally altered the
>> speed. Running command line speedtest gives a correct speedtest from the
>> squid host. Test machine was machine running firefox and chrome with the
>> proxy statically configured and wasn't under any load. A similarly
>> configured squid on smaller hardware and the same service provider runs
>> consistently gives an accurate speedtest (same centos and squid
>> versions). Any one have any ideas?
> I trust you have checked cache.log, system log, and network interface
> statistics for warnings, errors, and red flags unique to the non-working
> use case.
Yes ... no obvious "red flags"
> Make sure that browser-proxy path is about the same in all tests you
> compare. The problem might be related to browser-Squid communication.
In both cases the test browser machines are physically cabled in to the
same gigabit switch as the squid proxy/firewall machine
> Since you have a "working" case (on "smaller hardware"), I would try the
> following using identical Squid versions:
>
> 1. Use the default Squid configuration with Squid memory caching
> disabled on both boxes. Is one setup still a lot "slower" than the other?
Yes, however the "bigger" site has more vlans so it has slightly more
https access lines and acls.
>
> 2. Compare access.logs and mgr:info output of the two tests (one test
> performed after a clean Squid start). Any unexpected differences?
Nothing jumps out at me.
>
> 3. If you have not already, test a Squid configuration identical to that
> "working" case (you can rename directories/hostnames if really needed,
> of course, but do not change anything you do not have to change). Is one
> setup still a lot "slower" than the other?
Yes one is slower.
> 4. Comparing cache.logs of virtually identically configured Squids with
> debug_options set to ALL,3 or higher may expose the critical difference.
> Debugging will slow Squid down a lot, of course, but perhaps you will
> see that one of the Squids is doing something that the other one does
> not do.
>
I can't see anything but both are in production and being used while I
was testing so generated a lot of data
> HTH,
>
> Alex.
More information about the squid-users
mailing list